Fife councillor strongly backs Scooniehill plan

Gordon Berry, The Courier, 23 November 2000

A leading north-east Fife councillor yesterday gave his strong backing to the £25 million golf and leisure development planned for a 460-acre site on the southern edge of St Andrews.

Councillor Peter Douglas, whose ward includes land at Scooniehill being targeted by the International Golf Club of St Andrews Ltd, said the scheme would secure a “green hinterland” to the area and would inject jobs and activity into the tourism market.

The councillor spoke during the second day of evidence in a public inquiry being held to determine an appeal against the East Area development committee’s decision - against the recommendation of officials - to reject the plans for two golf courses, residential accommodation and leisure facilities.

He said the proposed site was adjacent to St Andrews, but scarcely visible from it, and it would be ideal for the purpose proposed. He said recent history of agriculture on the site had been “varied and only partially successful” and a seminar he had attended had painted a very gloomy picture with predictions that even large agricultural enterprises would struggle for survival. One remedy was diversification.

Turning to tourism, Mr Douglas said he was a director of Fife tourist board and was “acutely aware” of the industry's importance. “This last year we've had the boost of the Millennium Open, but even with this there has been a downturn in tourist activity.”

He said the developers had tried very hard to meet concerns on issues such as such as traffic routes, increased planting, creating a new loch, rights of way, preserving worthwhile buildings and providing in-house transport.

Asked by St Andrews community council vice chairman Dr Frank Riddell why he supported the development when he had voted against the Kingask proposals, Mr Douglas said the two ventures were completely different.

It was also claimed yesterday that the Scooniehill project would help meet key objectives in the new national strategy for golf tourism.

Derek Scott, of planning and architectural firm Halliday Fraser Munro, outlined several reasons that would justify approval of the scheme. The strategy’s key objectives included increasing golf tourism expenditure in Scotland and the number of UK and overseas visitors taking golf breaks. Other objectives were to increase the number of golfers playing less well-known courses, numbers of visitors outside the main season and ensuring that product development was in line with market needs.

Mr Scott said the proposals would meet all of these objectives and there would be significant job opportunities, an acceptable form of diversification for farmland and a rise in bio-diversity. Also, development of a golf course would protect the landscape setting of St Andrews, a point “so much craved by local residents.”

Finally, he said, an area of great landscape value would be improved by the removal of modern farm buildings and replacing them with an attractive, traditionally designed clubhouse and facilities.

Asked by Mrs June Barrie, who leads the Fife Council case, whether the clubhouse location had been chosen because it had the best view over St Andrews, Mr Scott said the view was a “bonus.”

Landscape architect Paul Hogarth said the project would provide a “major opportunity” to create a sustainable landscape. There was still scope to move the clubhouse further into a belt of trees, and mitigating landscaping would start ear on the site. There was no Justifiable reason for refusing outline planning consent.

The inquiry continues.